Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: The high prevalence of learning disabilities among children confirm that learning disabilities are surprisingly common. In the absence of routine screening, many children still go undetected with a huge individual and family burden, while at the same time, the findings of existing interventions are conflicting. This study reports on the design, implementation and evaluation of an innovative pilot intervention aiming at improving the quality of life of the family of children with specific learning disabilities. Method: For the purposes of this study, we ran a randomized controlled trial employing an experimental research design with two groups (intervention and control). The study population comprised parents of children with specific learning disabilities. Out of the 71 individuals that were eligible for randomization, 42 were allocated to the intervention, and 29 to the control group. A brief parenting intervention model was employed, aiming at improving parenting skills through a stepwise process. The intervention included four skill building sessions conducted over a period of 6 weeks. “Parenting style” (including three dimensions: “Authoritative”, “Authoritarian” and “Permissive”) and “Family Quality of life” (including five dimensions: “Family Interaction”, “Parenting”, “Emotional Well-being”, “Physical/Material Wellbeing” and “Disability-Related Support”) were employed as the outcome measures of this study. Two validated questionnaires were used to measure the study outcomes: “the Parenting Style Questionnaire” and the “Family Quality of Life Scale (FQOL) Questionnaire”. The questionnaires were applied at the pre- and post-intervention level. Findings: An analysis showed that except for the “permissive parenting style”, the intervention and control group had statistically significant differences in all the “Parenting style” and the “Quality of life” dimensions at the post-intervention level. In the intervention group, none of the study dimensions improved at a statistically significant level at the post-intervention level compared to pre-intervention level. According to the cluster analysis, which re-examined successful vs. unsuccessful cases, the intervention was found to have an effect on the average values of all the “quality of life” and “parenting style” dimensions, except for the “Authoritarian Parenting Style”. Conclusions: The study offers evidence on the dimensions of parenting and quality of life mostly affected by a brief intervention as well as on the feasibility, practicality and acceptance of such interventions in local communities.

Residential mobility is one documented stressor contributing to higher delinquency and worse educational outcomes. Sensitive period life course models suggest that certain developmental stages make individuals more susceptible to the effects of an exposure, like residential mobility, on outcomes. However, most prior research is observational, and has not examined heterogeneity across age or gender that may inform sensitive periods, even though it may have important implications for the etiology of adolescent development. Moreover, there are important translational implications for identifying the groups most vulnerable to residential mobility to inform how to buffer adverse effects of moving. In this study, low-income families were randomized to residential mobility out of public housing into lower poverty neighborhoods using a rental subsidy voucher (“experimental voucher condition”), and were compared to control families remaining in public housing. The sample was comprised of 2829 youth (51% female; 62% Non-Hispanic Black, 31% Hispanic, 7% other race). At baseline, youth ranged from 5 to 16 years old. This study hypothesized that random assignment to the housing voucher condition would generate harmful effects on delinquency and educational problems, compared to the control group, among boys who were older at baseline. The results confirmed this hypothesis: random assignment to the experimental voucher condition generating residential mobility caused higher delinquency among boys who were 13–16 years old at baseline, compared to same-age, in-place public housing controls. However, residential mobility did not affect delinquency among girls regardless of age, or among boys who were 5–12 years old at baseline. The pattern of results for educational problems was similar but weaker. Families with teenage boys are particularly vulnerable to residential transitions. Incorporating additional supports into housing programs may help low-income, urban families to successfully transition to lower poverty neighborhoods.

Two studies examined response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for two cohorts of first-grade students demonstrating low levels of reading after previous intervention. Students were assigned to one of three groups that received (a) a single dose of intervention, (b) a double dose of intervention, or (c) no intervention. Examination of individual student response to intervention indicated that more students in the treatment groups demonstrated accelerated learning over time than students in the comparison condition. Students' responses to the single-dose and double-dose interventions were similar over time. Students in all conditions demonstrated particular difficulties with gains in reading fluency. Implications for future research and practice within response to intervention models are provided.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the association between learning disability and risk of hospital admission and death from covid-19 in England among adults and children.DesignPopulation based cohort study on behalf of NHS England using the OpenSAFELY platform.SettingPatient level data were obtained for more than 17 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. Electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics and hospital admission data from NHS Secondary Uses Service.ParticipantsAdults (aged 16-105 years) and children (<16 years) from two cohorts: wave 1 (registered with a TPP practice as of 1 March 2020 and followed until 31 August 2020); and wave 2 (registered 1 September 2020 and followed until 8 February 2021). The main exposure group consisted of people on a general practice learning disability register; a subgroup was defined as those having profound or severe learning disability. People with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy were identified (whether or not they were on the learning disability register).Main outcome measureCovid-19 related hospital admission and covid-19 related death. Non-covid-19 deaths were also explored.ResultsFor wave 1, 14 312 023 adults aged ≥16 years were included, and 90 307 (0.63%) were on the learning disability register. Among adults on the register, 538 (0.6%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission; there were 222 (0.25%) covid-19 related deaths and 602 (0.7%) non-covid deaths. Among adults not on the register, 29 781 (0.2%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission; there were 13 737 (0.1%) covid-19 related deaths and 69 837 (0.5%) non-covid deaths. Wave 1 hazard ratios for adults on the learning disability register (adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and geographical location) were 5.3 (95% confidence interval 4.9 to 5.8) for covid-19 related hospital admission and 8.2 (7.2 to 9.4) for covid-19 related death. Wave 2 produced similar estimates. Associations were stronger among those classified as having severe to profound learning disability, and among those in residential care. For both waves, Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy were associated with increased hazards for both events; Down’s syndrome to a greater extent. Hazard ratios for non-covid deaths followed similar patterns with weaker associations. Similar patterns of increased relative risk were seen for children, but covid-19 related deaths and hospital admissions were rare, reflecting low event rates among children.ConclusionsPeople with learning disability have markedly increased risks of hospital admission and death from covid-19, over and above the risks observed for non-covid causes of death. Prompt access to covid-19 testing and healthcare is warranted for this vulnerable group, and prioritisation for covid-19 vaccination and other targeted preventive measures should be considered.

Comprehensive models of learning disorders have to consider both isolated learning disorders that affect one learning domain only, as well as comorbidity between learning disorders. However, empirical evidence on comorbidity rates including all three learning disorders as defined by DSM-5 (deficits in reading, writing, and mathematics) is scarce. The current study assessed prevalence rates and gender ratios for isolated as well as comorbid learning disorders in a representative sample of 1633 German speaking children in 3rd and 4th Grade. Prevalence rates were analysed for isolated as well as combined learning disorders and for different deficit criteria, including a criterion for normal performance. Comorbid learning disorders occurred as frequently as isolated learning disorders, even when stricter cutoff criteria were applied. The relative proportion of isolated and combined disorders did not change when including a criterion for normal performance. Reading and spelling deficits differed with respect to their association with arithmetic problems: Deficits in arithmetic co-occurred more often with deficits in spelling than with deficits in reading. In addition, comorbidity rates for arithmetic and reading decreased when applying stricter deficit criteria, but stayed high for arithmetic and spelling irrespective of the chosen deficit criterion. These findings suggest that the processes underlying the relationship between arithmetic and reading might differ from those underlying the relationship between arithmetic and spelling. With respect to gender ratios, more boys than girls showed spelling deficits, while more girls were impaired in arithmetic. No gender differences were observed for isolated reading problems and for the combination of all three learning disorders. Implications of these findings for assessment and intervention of learning disorders are discussed.

Aim:To assess academic attainment and special educational needs (SEN) in extremely preterm children in middle childhood.Methods:Of 307 extremely preterm (⩽25 weeks) survivors born in the UK and Ireland in 1995, 219 (71%) were re-assessed at 11 years of age and compared to 153 classmates born at term, using standardised tests of cognitive ability and academic attainment and teacher reports of school performance and SEN. Multiple imputation was used to correct for selective dropout.Results:Extremely preterm children had significantly lower scores than classmates for cognitive ability (−20 points; 95% CI −23 to −17), reading (−18 points; −22 to −15) and mathematics (−27 points; −31 to −23). Twenty nine (13%) extremely preterm children attended special school. In mainstream schools, 105 (57%) extremely preterm children had SEN (OR 10; 6 to 18) and 103 (55%) required SEN resource provision (OR 10; 6 to 18). Teachers rated 50% of extremely preterm children as having below average attainment compared with 5% of classmates (OR 18; 8 to 41). Extremely preterm children who entered compulsory education an academic year early due to preterm birth had similar academic attainment but required more SEN support (OR 2; 1.0 to 3.6).Conclusions:Extremely preterm survivors remain at high risk for learning impairments and poor academic attainment in middle childhood. A significant proportion require full-time specialist education and over half of those attending mainstream schools require additional health or educational resources to access the national curriculum. The prevalence and impact of SEN are likely to increase as these children approach the transition to secondary school.

We estimated the prevalence of obesity, overweight, and underweight among US adolescents with and without autism and other learning and behavioral developmental disabilities (DDs) and assessed the health consequences of obesity among adolescents with DDs. From the 2008 to 2010 National Health Interview Survey, we selected 9,619 adolescents ages 12–17 years. Parent respondents reported weight, height, presence of DDs and health conditions. We calculated body mass index (BMI) and defined obesity, overweight, and underweight as ≥95th, ≥85th to <95th, and <5th percentiles, respectively, using established criteria. We created mutually-exclusive DD subgroups using the following order of precedence: autism; intellectual disability; attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder; learning disorder/other developmental delay. We compared BMI outcomes among adolescents in each DD group versus adolescents without DDs using multivariable logistic regression. Socio-demographic factors and birthweight were included as confounders. Estimates were weighted to reflect the US population. Both obesity and underweight prevalences were higher among adolescents with than without DDs [adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) 1.5 (1.25–1.75) and 1.5 (1.01–2.20), respectively]. Obesity was elevated among adolescents with all DD types, and was highest among the autism subgroup [aPR 2.1 (1.44–3.16)]. Adolescents with either a DD or obesity had higher prevalences of common respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermatological and neurological conditions/symptoms than nonobese adolescents without DDs. Adolescents with both DDs and obesity had the highest estimates for most conditions. Obesity is high among adolescents with autism and other DDs and poses added chronic health risks. Obesity prevention and management approaches for this vulnerable population subgroup need further consideration.

The prevalence of learning disabilities (LD) among children is a critical public health issue; however, recent LD prevalence estimates among children and adolescents aged 6–17 years, as reported by the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH), remain largely unexplored. Data for this population-based cross-sectional study were obtained from NSCH to estimate the prevalence of LD diagnosis among U.S. children at both national and state levels, and to inspect the 8-year trends in these estimates from 2016 to 2023. Among 221,244 U.S. children, 20,644 had a history of LD diagnosis, with a weighted prevalence of 8.85% (95% CI  = 8.59–9.10). Of these, 19,289 were currently diagnosed with LD, yielding a weighted prevalence of 8.26% (95% CI  = 8.01–8.51). From 2016 to 2023, the prevalence of ever-diagnosed LD increased from 7.86% to 9.15%, while that of current-diagnosed LD rose from 7.32% to 8.66%, representing relative increases of 16.4% and 18.3%, respectively. The state with the highest prevalence (New Hampshire) had twice that of the state with the lowest prevalence (Utah). This study highlights a critical escalation in LD prevalence among U.S. children and adolescents between 2016 and 2023. Comprehensive screening and support programs must be implemented to enhance early identification and intervention.

Purpose People with learning disabilities have complex challenges and needs that differ from people without these conditions. Accessing needed health and mental health care may be affected by level of independence and severity of learning challenges. Our study examined factors and associations which impact help seeking and satisfaction with mental health care in a Canadian nationally representative sample. Methods Logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression was used to analyze the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey- Mental Health (CCHS 2012) cross-sectional survey. We investigated the odds of distressed individuals (1) perceiving a need for mental health care, (2) seeking out professional mental health care, and (3) if their needs were met by mental health services. The presence of a learning disability was assessed as a moderator variable in all models. Results Distressed adults with learning disabilities did not perceive a need for mental health care as often as distressed adults without a learning disability (OR = 3.82;95%CI:1.64,8.93 vs. OR = 12.00;95%CI:9.19,15.67). Distressed adults with a learning disability weren’t as likely to seek out mental health services, but were more satisfied with the mental health care they received as compared to adults without a learning disability. Conclusion The findings suggest that adults with learning disabilities have unmet needs. They are less likely to perceive a need for treatment, or to seek treatment, when they are distressed. Future investigation is necessary to understand the factors that influence perceived need and treatment seeking in this under-served population.

This study examined the relationship between university students' use of common and specific services and the presence of specific learning disabilities (SLDs). The objective was to identify how sociodemographic factors, health status, and learning disabilities impact service utilization, with a focus on improving accessibility and support for students with SLDs. Employing random but voluntary sampling, a cross-sectional survey of university students was conducted using a tool demonstrating good internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.859). The survey collected data on sociodemographics, health status, and self-reported specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Participants assessed their utilization of common university services (e.g., library, academic advising, LMS) and specific support services (e.g., one-to-one meetings, electronic books, dispensatory measures, compensatory tools). Data analysis included frequency distributions, Chi-square tests, Binary Logistic Regression, and Pearson correlation to examine associations between SLDs and service utilization patterns. Participants (n = 302) were predominantly male (59.9%) and aged 18-25 years (89.7%), with high rates of dysgraphia (42.7%), dyscalculia (43%), and auditory processing disorder (23.8%). Regression analyses revealed: Frequent use of common services was significantly associated with visual perceptual/motor deficits (aOR=3.87, 95% CI = 1.82-8.21, P < .001), advanced academic year (aOR=1.29, 95% CI = 1.09-1.53, P = 0.004), and positive educational self-perception (aOR=2.32, 95% CI = 1.12-4.80, P = 0.024). For specific services, key predictors included female gender (aOR=2.07, 95% CI = 1.15-3.73, P = 0.015), dyslexia (aOR=2.73, 95% CI = 1.07-6.98, P = 0.036), auditory processing disorder (aOR=2.52, 95% CI = 1.17-5.41, P = 0.018), while sleep disturbances reduced utilization (aOR=0.46, 95% CI = 0.27-0.79, P = 0.005). This study reveals significant underutilization of university services among students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs), despite high prevalence rates. Engagement patterns were strongly influenced by SLD type, academic progression, self-perception, gender, and health factors. To address these barriers, we recommend targeted interventions including: 1) disability-awareness campaigns to reduce stigma, 2) tailored accommodation (e.g., extended time, multimodal materials) aligned with specific SLD profiles, and 3) mandatory faculty training on inclusive instructional strategies and available support resources. These evidence-based measures are critical for improving accessibility and academic success for this vulnerable population.